Having visited the Vatican and the Vatican museums, as well as several of the largest cathedrals in Europe and the UK, I heartily agree with this. How many hungry people could be fed if all this was dissolved?

Consider, too, that there are a lot of them that sort of believe but really go because it's a family tradition, the ritual makes them feel good, and for the social aspects. I'm married to one of those.

Once when I visited my sister who lives 700 miles away, she needed to get into the yard at the public school where she taught. But it was Sunday and the place was closed up tight. I pulled out my office key and tried it in the padlock on the gate. It fit right in and with a little wiggle the lock popped open. And this was an allegedly commercial-quality Schlage lock. A colleague of mine at work showed me that, because the building was on master keys, you could use your office key to bump the locks of most every door in the building.

This one doesn't pass the smell test. The article quotes a Facebook post but does not contain any original reporting by the reporter. There is an old saying in journalism: If your mother says she loves you, check it out. I don't see where the reporter verified these claims.

Reminds me of my high school days. We used to pick the cabinet locks with a paper clip. We could also get into the circuit breaker boxes in the hallway. We had two lunch sessions so when we were at lunch and others were in class we'd open a breaker box and trip the classroom lights. One of the guys was good at cracking the combination locks on the lockers. He'd open two and we'd switch the contents and close them up again. Somehow we thought that was riotously funny.
In the end, security is just a state of mind.

You know, this thing about insecurity really got me thinking about some issues. Thanks.
I've said this before but it all comes down to fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of things over which we have no control, fear of being punished for being a normal human being. Once someone realizes that there are no gods, all that fear lifts and a new sense of freedom arrives.

Yes. The debates used to be sponsored by the League of Women Voters. But, as you note, the big two didn't like what happened, so they wanted conditions on the debates that the League would not agree to. So the two parties created their own commission on presidential debates, effectively shutting out any other candidates.
What we need are multiple parties, proportional representation, a limit on campaign spending, and a defined time (such as 90 days) for campaigning.
But in the end, it is and always will be, an oligarchy — as are most governments — regardless of what is done.

In our city there are over 50 languages spoken and it doesn't bother me in the least to hear them. Some have a beautiful sound and are enjoyable to hear even without understanding what's being said.
When you study languages you learn that there are idioms and phrases that express notions and thoughts that can't be directly translated into another language. And since we think with language more often than with visual images, having more than one language available expands the ways in which we can think as well as some of the things we might think about. In some languages a single word or two can express an idea that would take multiple sentences to explain in another language and even then certain nuances can be lost. In my travels on four continents I've admired those who are multi-lingual and I feel that our educational system is derelict in not starting children on a second language in the lower primary grades. Learning other languages increases cultural understanding, the lack of which is the cause of many interpersonal and international problems.

How about asking God why he invented cancer in the first place? Why he infects little kids with it and causes them to die slow, painful deaths? Because he's an evil, sadistic son-of-a-bitch?
(By the way, I have cancer. It's under control because of science.)

Welcome. We hope you'll feel comfortable contributing in the future. In your year of lurking you've certainly discovered that some of the folks here argue with each other stridently but still remain friends. Jump in, the water's fine.

A bit of advice to the side: I'd recommend that, in discussions, you avoid using the term "atheist." (I'm not saying you do use it.) But that term is often used as a pejorative and a call to arms among religionists. And the suffix "ism" causes some folks think atheism is a belief system, which we know is not. Atheists are painted as being anti-Christian, which is not always true, and being devil worshippers who barbecue babies. "Non-believer" I think is better. And I think it's better to say, "I don't believe in gods or spirits of any kind," rather than saying, "I'm an atheist."

^ ^ ^
Plus, just spent a three-day weekend at Disneyland with seven grandchildren, two of the girlfriends, and two parents. Everyone had a terrific time. The little kids we thought would be afraid of the more extreme rollercoasters absolutely loved them (i.e. Space Mountain etc.).
And we just bought a new car and so far it's turning out to be the best car we've ever owned.

And it's difficult to remember when referring to the little pack that we wear around our waists. We're now starting to refer to it as a "waist pack," rather than a fanny pack. But the habit of calling it the latter name is hard to break.

I think Boghossian's approach is different from the MormonAds project in the OP's link. Both could be effective. While the MormonAds method shows believers the holes and inconsistencies in their belief, Boghossian advises avoiding a direct challenge to the beliefs but rather to question the believer's thought system. Boghossian provides a matrix that begins with a question: “Is it possible that some people misconstrue reality?” By working through this matrix the religionist ends up with no choice but to acknowledge that the only way to know reality is through an evidence-based process, and that there is no evidence to support a faith-based position.
While the MormonAds method could cause someone to leave a set of specific beliefs, I'm not sure that such a person would not replace that with another. Boghossian, on the other hand, leads the believer to a point where an evidence-based world view is the only rational option. (Of course, this is not to say that the technique will work. Some folks are just not rational. Their fears are too great to submit to the uncertainty of life.)

So how would she have reacted if the waiter had described her and her group as "intelligent people"? Perhaps the restaurant is better off without these folks as customers.
Sheesh, folks. Take a chill pill.

Have you tried saying that if his god is a good one he/it will judge you based on what you did in your life — if you led an honest, honorable one; made positive contributions to society; and raised intelligent, thoughtful children?